Back
1976 Supreme(All) 179
Allahbad High Court
M.N.SHUKLA
Jagarnath - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, U. P. Camp at Gorakhpur - Respondent
Decided On : 05/11/1976
Lalji Sahai Srivastava, for Petitioners; Standing Counsel and R.N. Pandey, for Opposite Parties.
A widow who enters into possession of her deceased husband's property in an independent capacity and remains in possession for the statutory period acquires absolute rights in the property by adverse possession.
Headnote:
HINDU LAW - ADVERSE POSSESSION - WIDOW - RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY WIDOW WHO ENTERS INTO POSSESSION OF HER DECEASED HUSBAND'S PROPERTY - NATURE OF RIGHTS - FACTORS DETERMINING THE NATURE OF RIGHTS - EFFECT OF WIDOW'S CONDUCT AND ASSERTION OF RIGHTS - APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES TO FACTS OF CASE - WIDOW HELD TO HAVE ACQUIRED ABSOLUTE RIGHTS BY ADVERSE POSSESSION - GIFT BY WIDOW TO DONEE - VALIDITY OF GIFT.
Fact of the Case:
Deo Narain died issueless in 1925 as a member of a joint Hindu family. His widow, Smt. Dulari, entered into possession of 2/3rd share of his property and remained in possession for over 40 years. In 1960, she gifted the property to respondents Nos. 6 to 9. The petitioners, collaterals of Deo Narain, challenged the gift, claiming that Smt. Dulari had only a life interest in the property and that her rights had extinguished under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and Section 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Smt. Dulari had acquired absolute rights in the property by adverse possession. It held that she had entered into possession of the property in an independent capacity and had not claimed it as an heir of her husband. The court also found that she had not entered into possession as a result of any agreement or arrangement with the collaterals. The court further held that Smt. Dulari's subsequent conduct, including the recitals in the gift deed, was consistent with her claim of independent rights.
Issues: 1. What is the nature of the rights acquired by a widow who enters into possession over a property of her deceased husband in which she had a life interest provided she matures her right by remaining in possession for the statutory period? 2. Whether Smt. Dulari had acquired absolute rights in the property by adverse possession? 3. Whether the gift by Smt. Dulari to respondents Nos. 6 to 9 was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature of the rights acquired by a widow who enters into possession over a property of her deceased husband in which she had a life interest depends on a number of factors: (a) Where she claims the property as the heir of her husband expressly or impliedly, she would only be entitled to a widow's estate and liable to make the property of her husband good to his estate. (b) Where the widow asserts that she takes the property as an absolute owner and completes her possession for the statutory period, she would acquire full rights by adverse possession and shall not be a limited owner. (c) Where she asserts nothing, there also she would acquire full rights unless it is established by the respondents that she had entered into possession as an heir or that she had taken possession of the property as a result of an arrangement with the collaterals or other claimants opposing her title. (d) Her subsequent conduct revealed in such things, as for instance, the recitals made in the documents of transfer would be consistent with her assertion as an absolute owner and would entitle her to full rights as such.
Final Decision: The court held that Smt. Dulari had acquired absolute rights in the property by adverse possession and that the gift by her to respondents Nos. 6 to 9 was valid. The court partly allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation to the extent that in the six plots enumerated above the share of Smt. Dulari and her transferees would be 2/9th instead of 2/3rd and the respondents Nos. 5 to 9 shall have no right in plot No. 776.
"What is the nature of the rights acquired by a widow who enters into possession over a property of her deceased husband in which she had a life interest provided she matures her right by remaining in possession for the statutory period ?"
2. The petitioners are collaterals of Deo Narain, Smt. Dulari, respondent No. 5, is the widow of Deo Narain and respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 namely, Tirathraj, Brahmdeo and Smt. Subhagi are the donees from her. Deo Narain died issueless in 1925 as a member of a joint Hindu family of which the petitioners or their predecessors-in-interest were members and Smt. Dulari was only entitled to maintenance. After the death of Deo Narain the name of Smt. Dulari came to be recorded in the Khewat as Sirholder over 2/3rd share of Deo Narain. She, however gifted her 2/3rd share in the land in dispute to respondents Nos. 6 to 9 by means of a registered gift deed dated 1-11-1960. When the consolidation proceedings started in the village in or about the year 1969 the donees filed objections under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act praying that their names should be mutated in place of Smt. Dulari on the basis of the said gift deed. The petitioners objected to the claim of the aforesaid respondents and contended, inter alia, that since Deo Narain died issueless as a member of a joint Hindu family Smt. Dulari was only was recorded in the revenue papers merely for consolidation, though she was not actually possessed of the land in dispute and her rights if any had extinguished both under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act and Section 210 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, that the donees (respondent Nos. 6 to 9) did not obtain possession from Smt. Dulari and were not entitled to mutation of their names in her place by virtue of the gift deed dated 1-11-1960.
3. The Consolidation Officer found that Smt. Dulari had only 2/9th share in the six plots namely 1456, 1478, 1496, 1537, 782 and 269 and that Smt. Dulari had no rights in plot No. 776. With regard to the remaining plots he held that Smt. Dulari had 2/3rd share according to the Khewat and she had a right of making a gift of the land in question. At the very outset the learned counsel for the respondents has conceded before me that he does not press his case with regard to this plot nor with regard to the six plots mentioned before. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also urged that no appeal was filed by respondents Nos. 6 to 9 with regard to the aforesaid six plots or plot No. 776, still the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has maintained the finding of the Consolidation Officer with regard to plot No. 776 and has held Suit. Dulari to be entitled to 2/3rd share instead of 2/9th share in the six plots mentioned earlier. The Deputy Director of consolidation has affirmed this finding and, therefore, both the orders must be modified to that extent. In other respects, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has affirmed the order of the Consolidation Officer and the same was also upheld by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The ultimate findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation were that Smt. Dularis succession to the tenancy of Deo Narain was in an independent capacity and she had become an independent tenure holder having all the rights of a Bhumidhar. It is these findings which have been strongly challenged before me and the petitioners have contended that Smt. Dulari had only a life interest in the 2/3rd share of the land which originally belonged to Deo Narain and as such she had no right to make a gift of
